[governance] Reply to Milton's blog post

[michael gurstein]

Avri and all,

 

I have no doubt that the below (taken from the transcript of Amb Kramer's
press conference following the WCIT) was a valuable and interesting
experience for all involved but I'm assuming that you will agree with me
that it raises some significant questions as to what exactly is meant by
multi-stakeholderism and more specifically the role of Civil Society in
these multi-stakeholder processes.

 

M

 

Amb Kramer: Now your second question - you said "lobbying." It's a good
question, but I'll rephrase it. It's not lobbying per se. We had - have a
delegation here of 100 representatives, roughly 50 from U.S. Government that
are people from State Department, FCC, Commerce Department, Department of
Defense, et cetera. We had about 40 people from industry, industry being
either internet players or telecom players, and then another 10 people or so
that were members of civil society. Their job as delegates is not to lobby.
They - as a matter of fact they have to sign an agreement that says they're
representing national interests.

 

So what we did is put them to work in a couple of areas. Number one is to be
subject matter experts about what does the internet look like in these
different places, what are the challenges and security issues going forward,
why is spam being discussed here, et cetera. And they - the industry
provided very, very helpful insights, positions, et cetera, that informed
our positions more broadly on a national basis.

 

A lot of that thought process, thought leadership was then used in our
bilaterals to work with other countries. And when I said that's the real
benefit of this conference, we had some great discussions. The second piece
of their work as members of industry, civil society, et cetera, was to do
outreach. And the beauty of outreach when you get in this setting is you're
able to talk to a lot of different countries, a lot of different players,
and share the points of view. And that's been a huge benefit of our
delegation.

 

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2012 4:58 AM
To: IGC
Subject: Re: [governance] Reply to Milton's blog post

 

 

On 16 Dec 2012, at 13:40, Oksana Prykhodko wrote:

 

> I asked to include me in the official delegation, and they did not do 

> it, because they did not have money for my trip. I am not sure that 

> they really did it if I had money, but at that moment I  had nothing 

> to answer to them.

 

 

i think that most of the non government types on the delegations found their
funding elsewhere.

 

i don't know of any delegations that funded CS to join them but perhaps I am
uninformed.  anyone else know of any?

 

they let us join, but we had to find funding elsewhere.

 

and since so many are intimating that the CS types on Member State
delegations were co-opted, at least it seems we paid for our own co-option.

 

avri

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20121216/f601bb1c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t